_:nfd8f3e0efd3c40478b06727d92e3b47dxb0
<http://schema.org/Articlebody>
"<p>\n  <img src=\"https://foreignpolicy.com/images/090818_walt2b.jpg\" width=\"525\" height=\"350\" />\n</p><p>At an appearance before the Veterans of Foreign Wars yesterday, President Obama <a href=\"http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Man-protests-President-Obamas-Phoenix-speech-with/q4OeoN6qZU-efcy1Zoq7xQ.cspx?p=2\">defended U.S. involvement</a> in Afghanistan, calling it a \"war of necessity.\" He claimed that \"our new strategy has a clear mission and defined goals -- to disrupt, dismantle and defeat <i>al Qaeda</i> and its extremist allies,\" and he declared that “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”<br /><br />This is a significant statement. In effect, the president was acknowledging that the only <i>strategic</i> rationale for an increased commitment in Afghanistan is the fear that if the Taliban isn't defeated in Afghanistan, they will eventually allow <i>al Qaeda</i> to re-establish itself there, which would then enable it to mount increasingly threatening attacks on the United States.  <br /><br />This is the kind of assertion that often leads foreign policy insiders to nod their heads in agreement, but it shouldn't be accepted uncritically. Here are a few reasons why the \"safe haven\" argument ought to be viewed with some skepticism.<br /><br /><b>First,</b> this argument tends to lump the various groups we are contending with together, and it suggests that all of them are equally committed to attacking the United States. In fact, most of the people we are fighting in Afghanistan aren't dedicated <i>jihadis</i> seeking to overthrow Arab monarchies, establish a Muslim caliphate, or mount attacks on U.S. soil. Their agenda is focused on local affairs, such as what they regard as the political disempowerment of Pashtuns and illegitimate foreign interference in their country. Moreover, the Taliban itself is more of a loose coalition of different groups than a tightly unified and hierarchical organization, which is why <a href=\"http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65151/fotini-christia-and-michael-semple/flipping-the-taliban\" target=\"_blank\">some experts believe</a> we ought to be doing more to divide the movement and \"flip\" the moderate elements to our side. Unfortunately, the \"safe haven\" argument wrongly suggests that the Taliban care as much about attacking America as bin Laden does.<br /><br /><b>Second, </b>while it is true that Mullah Omar gave Osama bin Laden a sanctuary both before and after 9/11, it is by no means clear that they would give him free rein to attack the United States again. Protecting <i>al Qaeda </i>back in 2001 brought no end of trouble to Mullah Omar and his associates, and if they were lucky enough to regain power, it is hard to believe they would give us a reason to come back in force.<br /><br /><b>Third,</b> it is hardly obvious that Afghan territory provides an ideal \"safe haven\" for mounting attacks on the United States. The 9/11 plot was organized out of Hamburg, not Kabul or Kandahar, but nobody is proposing that we send troops to Germany to make sure there aren't \"safe havens\" operating there. In fact, if al Qaeda has to hide out somewhere, I’d rather they were in a remote, impoverished, land-locked and isolated area from which it is hard to do almost anything. The \"bases\" or \"training camps\" they could organize in Pakistan or Afghanistan might be useful for organizing a Mumbai-style attack, but they would not be particularly valuable if you were trying to do a replay of 9/11 (not many flight schools there), or if you were trying to build a weapon of mass destruction. And in a post-9/11 environment, it wouldn’t be easy for a group of al Qaeda operatives bent on a Mumbia-style operation get all the way to the United States. One cannot rule this sort of thing out, of course, but does that unlikely danger justify an open-ended commitment that is going to cost us more than $60 billion next year?<br /><br /><b>Fourth,</b> in the unlikely event that a new Taliban government did give al Qaeda carte blanche to prepare attacks on the United States or its allies, the United States isn't going to sit around and allow them to go about their business undisturbed. The Clinton administration wasn't sure it was a good idea to go after al Qaeda's training camps back in the 1990s (though they eventually did, albeit somewhat half-heartedly), but that was before 9/11.   We know more now and the U.S. government is hardly going to be bashful about attacking such camps in the future.  (Remember: we are already doing that in Pakistan, with the tacit approval of the Pakistani government). Put differently, having a Taliban government in Kabul would hardly make Afghanistan a \"safe haven\" today or in the future, because the United States has lots of weapons it can use against al Qaeda that don’t require a large U.S. military presence on the ground.<br /><br /><b>Fifth,</b> as <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/opinion/23stewart.html\" target=\"_blank\">well-informed critics</a> have already observed, the primary motivation for extremist organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda is their opposition to what they regard as unwarranted outside interference in their own societies. Increasing the U.S. military presence and engaging in various forms of social engineering is as likely to reinforce such motivations as it is to eliminate them. Obama is hoping that a different strategy will eventually undercut support for the Taliban and strengthen the central government, but it is still an <a href=\"http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n13/stew01_.html\" target=\"_blank\">open question</a> whether more American involvement will have positive or negative effects. If we are in fact making things worse, then we may be encouraging precisely the outcome we are trying to avoid.<br /><br />Sixth, one might also take comfort from the Soviet experience. When the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989, the <i>mujaheddin</i> didn't \"follow them home.\" Were the United States to withdraw from Aghanistan and the Taliban to regain power (or end up sharing power, which is more likely), going after the United States won't even be on their \"to do\" list.  </p><p>One can of course make a moral argument for an extended commitment in Afghanistan, but that's not the argument Obama made (and it probably wouldn't sell very well here at home). For a realist, the \"safe haven\" argument is the only possible rationale for a large military commitment in Afghanistan. But the case is actually quite dubious, and somebody in the administration really ought to take a hard look at it. I doubt anyone will, however, because Obama is now committed, and his administration is filled with \"can-do\" types who never saw an international problem they didn't think the United States could fix.I sure hope they're right and I'm wrong, but I also wish that I didn’t have that feeling quite as often as I seem to these days.  </p><p>\n  <span class=\"smallgray\">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</span>\n</p>"
<https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/08/18/the-safe-haven-myth-2/>